About your Search

20121112
20121120
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4
at "the washington post" to figure out who might be president. i started that process with bill clinton, turning it into a book, and so there was an assumption when i wrote about barack obama in 2008, an assumption by my friends and colleagues that i would just immediately launch into the boying of barack obama, and i haveƱhr to say it was onef the more disk decisions made in my career, and it had nothing to do with barack obama, but what i consider to be the increasingly toxic nature of superficial nature offed -- of modern american politics. i was not sure i wanted to spend three or four years trying to get the true story and throw that into the swath of this culture knowing that there would be people who could try to manipulate any fact and turn it for their political purposes, which, to some extent, is what happened early on until i refused to let it happen more. in any cation, on election night in 2008, i decided i had to do the book, and the story, itself, is what was drawing me into it in a way that transcended any of my concerns about the political culture. this book is really
debate, how striking was it that when mitt romney presto, from his response was, well, under bill clinton there was great economic prosperity are the holy observer, is all about bill clinton and how nifty the economy was under him. i've got to tell you, i would've given a link to see that romney turned to him and say, mr. president, i knew bill clinton. [laughter] our ideas work, their ideas don't. the last four years our economy has grown 1.5% a year. that is less than half the historical average. for 70 years has averaged 3.3% growth a year. and this president is fond of saying he inherited the worst economy in the history of the universe. and everything, by the way, is george w. bush's fault. he doesn't have much historical memory when he makes that argument. any of you all remember 1978, 1979? double-digit unemployment, 22% interest rates gas lines, stagflation in 1888 different president. ronald reagan inherited a struggling economy. and reagan implemented policies 180 degrees opposite those of obama. incentive jacking up taxes, he slashed taxes. instead of exploding spending on the
obama's, as did bill clinton, with a republican-controlled house and a republican-controlled senate after a more resounding second-term victory than president obama. both examples -- both of them -- illustrate the rare opportunity that divided government presents. president obama can follow suit or he can take the extremist view that both reagan and clinton rejected, by thumbing his nose at the other side and insisting that if republicans aren't willing to do things his way, he won't do anything at all. now, if the president's serious, he'll follow the leads of president reagan and clinton. if he's really serious, he'll put the campaign rhetoric aside, propose a realistic solution that can pass a republican-controlled house and a divided senate, and work to get it done. and if the president acts in this spirit, i have no doubt he'll have the support of his own party and a willing partner in ours. and the american people will breathe a sigh of relief knowing not only that we've avoided a crisis but that washington can still serve their interests. unless we act i, in a few short weeks
within a vote of being removed from office. and prior to bill clinton the only president to be impeached. these aren't all stories about guy that is did the wise thing or looking back from the point of 200 years later was the thing that was the best for the presidency -- best for the country. it was at that moment he stood up, risked his political future to do what he believed was right for the country is and certainly right for the presidency. >> you have this note in here mary todd lincoln wrote to a friend. it combines the drinking of andrew johnson and also the card that we read from john wilkes booth. >> that's right. >> do you remember when that was made public, that note? >> i don't. i don't. >> it doesn't say. but i wondered if -- >> no. i think it was -- >> at the time? >> yes, i think so. if not, it certainly was the case that this thought was out there, that he had been in a conspiracy. because the note from wilkes booth was certainly made public at the time. it was part of the investigation. and there was this feeling that this southerner had, you know, come in -- been taken
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4